General Rules for Evaluating an Expert's Opinion in Criminal Proceedings
Abstract
Abstract. The article provides a comprehensive theoretical and legal analysis of the general rules governing the evaluation of an expert's opinion in criminal proceedings. The normative provisions of Ukraine's criminal procedural legislation are analyzed, which define the expert's opinion as an independent procedural source of evidence, along with the criteria for its verification and evaluation. It is substantiated that the expert's opinion does not have a predetermined evidentiary value and is subject to evaluation on a par with other evidence from the standpoint of relevance, admissibility, reliability, and in combination with other evidence - sufficiency and interrelation. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the specificity of the expert's opinion resulting from the use of specialized knowledge, which makes its evaluation by the parties to the evidence difficult. It is established that the verification of the expert's conclusion should include an analysis of the legality of the appointment and conduct of the examination, the competence of the expert, the sufficiency of the objects of research, the scientific validity of the applied methods, the logic of the presentation, the completeness of the answers and the correspondence of the conclusion to other evidence in criminal proceedings. The problem of subjectivity in expert activity, which may manifest itself in the selection of research objects, methods, technical means, the interpretation of results, and the formulation of final conclusions, is investigated. Particular attention is paid to the risks of using pseudoscientific or insufficiently tested methods, as well as the need to verify their scientific validity and suitability for a specific cognitive situation. Special attention is paid to the standards for evaluating expert conclusions in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, the principles of adversarial nature, equality of the parties, independence of the expert, and the right of the defense to effectively refute the prosecution's evidence. The conclusion is that further improvement is needed in the criteria for evaluating the expert's opinion, the limits of his competence, and the procedure for responding to contradictions between different expert studies.
Keywords: criminal proceedings; evidence; expert opinion; forensic expert; evaluation of evidence; verification of evidence.
Downloads
References
Akhtyrska, N.M. (2019). Assessment of the conclusions of “scientific judges” in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Criminalistics and Forensics, 64, 125-137. DOI: 10.33994/kndise.2019.64.09
Baulin, O., & Izotov, O. (2021). Verification and assesment of an expert conclusion in criminal proceedings. Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 66, 95-108. DOI: 10.33994/kndise.2021.66.11
Bazhaniuk, V.V. (2021). Evaluation of the expert opinion in criminal proceedings. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University. Series: Jurisprudence, 54(2), 110-113. DOI: 10.32841/2307-1745.2021.54.2.24
Dementiev, М.V. (2023). Epistemological and Procedural principles of evaluation and verification of the expert's report. Doctor's thesis. Kharkiv.
Dufeniuk, O.M. (2019). Expert’s subjectivism in criminal proceedings. Social and Legal Studios, 4(6), 74-81. Retrieved from https://dspace.lvduvs.edu.ua/bitstream/1234567890/2789/1/12.pdf
Kuchynska, O., & Pylypchuk, O. (2020). Research of the expert’s conclusion in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance. Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 65, 19-25. DOI: 10.33994/kndise.2020.65.02
Kravchenko, O., & Zaveryko, R. (2020). Comprehensive assessment of expert conclusion in criminal proceedings. Criminalistics and Forensics, 65, 120-129. DOI: 10.33994/kndise.2020.65.12
Lukianchuk, O.I. (2021). Legality of reviewing an expert opinion in court proceedings. Criminalistic Bulletin, 1(35), 38-47. DOI: 10.37025/1992-4437/2021-35-1-38
Puchko, D.V. (2020). Rrelevance and reliability of an expert conclusion as criteria for evaluating forensic examination. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 22, 226-239. DOI: 10.32353/khrife.2.2020.17
Shcherbakovskyi, M., & Protsenko, A. (2023). Evaluation of the results of expert examination based on a probabilistic approach (based on foreign publications). Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 1(30), 50-69. DOI: 10.32353/khrife.1.2023.04
Shcherbakovskyi, M.H., Dementiev, M.V., & Protsenko, A.M. (2022). Criteria and types of procedural violations as grounds for inadmissibility of an expert opinion. Bulletin of Luhansk State University of Internal Affairs Named after E.O. Didorenko, 3(99), 173-186. DOI: 10.33766/2524-0323.99.173-186
Tsyhaniuk, Yu.V., & Shulhin, S.O. (2023). Disagreement with the expert's opinion as a result of the evaluation of evidence by internal conviction. Forensic Herald, 2(40), 16-29. DOI: 10.37025/1992-4437/2023-40-2-16
Tymchyshyn, A.M. (2023). Forensic examination as a procedural form of using special knowledge in criminal proceedings. South Ukrainian Law Journal, 1, 228-235. DOI: 10.32850/sulj.2023.1.40
Volobuiev, A.F. (2025). Procedure for evaluating an expert’s opinion in criminal proceedings. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 3(3), 39-43. DOI: 10.24144/2788-6018.2025.03.3.5
Vorobchak, A.R. (2019). The expert opinion as a source of evidences in criminal proceedings. Extended abstract of candidate's thesis. Odesa.
Zavdovieva, I.H., Horbenko, V.O., Diachenko, O.M., & Cherkashyna, N.O. (2018). Error and its significance in forensic expert activity. Forensic Herald, 2(30), 31-39. DOI: 10.37025/1992-4437/2018-30-2-31
Abstract views: 40 PDF Downloads: 20
Authors reserve the right to authorship of their own work and transfer to the magazine the right of the first publication of this work under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which allows other persons to freely distribute published work with mandatory reference to authors of the original work and the first publication of an article in this magazine.
Authors have the right to enter into separate additional agreements on non-exclusive dissemination of the work in the form in which it was published in the journal (for example, to post an article in the institution's repository or to publish as part of a monograph), provided that the link to the first publication of the work in this journal is maintained.
The journal's policy allows and encourages the posting of articles by authors on the Internet (for example, in electronic storehouses of institutions or on personal websites), both before the submission of this manuscript to the editorial office and during its editorial processing, as this contributes to the creation of a productive scientific discussion and positively affects the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work.
